Well, The New York Times may get Judaism, it might not get Hinduism, but does it get Catholicism? Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has decided to use recent articles from the Gray Lady to show how Americans — especially journalists in his zip code — are anti-Catholic. Needless to say, this was an op-ed article that Fox News was happy to publish, while the Times declined to do so.
As Gary Stern notes, Dolan is precise in his critique, offering specific examples of his frustrations, which is more helpful to reporters than criticizing the mass media as a whole.
Dolan first looks at an Oct. 14 story in the Times about 40 cases of child sexual abuse that took place in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community during the last year. He argues that the reporter did not dig for more details the same way reporters have pursued with the Catholic abuse cases.
Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so … but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”
Needless to say, it’s probably pretty motivating for reporters to pursue the Catholic church angle when entire dioceses are filing for bankruptcy. Regardless, Dolan makes a good point: Reporters should use the same vigor to pursue the names of abusers and call for transparency when reporting this kind of abuse case.
Dolan’s second point examines Laurie Goodstein’s Oct. 16 front page, above-the-fold story on a Franciscan priest who fathered a child.
… one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation-genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.
You could probably use this argument with just about any story the Times puts on its front page, since the stories with the most global impact don’t necessarily make it above the fold. Dolan’s argument that a cleric from another religion probably wouldn’t merit such attention is probably true, considering Catholics make up about 24 percent of the country (versus, say, 1.7 percent who are Jewish). Protestantism often seems too fragmented for individual Protestants to become interested in a pastor’s scandal if it doesn’t involve their own church.
Third, the Times reported that the Vatican is welcoming Anglicans to join the Catholic Church (an article that tmatt mostly praised). Dolan picks apart the lead, where Laurie Goodstein begins: “In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse. …”
Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. … for [The Times], this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.
Choosing the word “lure” seems fairly accurate to me, since it’s not every day that Pope Benedict XVI paves the way for another tradition to join the Catholic Church, right? Then again, some Anglicans had been seeking his help for more than a decade.
Finally, Dolan says a piece by Maureen Dowd would not have passed muster with the editors if it had criticized an Islamic, Jewish or African-American religious issue.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm — the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives — is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
Perhaps that’s some food for thought for the op-ed department to consider, but we’ll stick to the news for now.
The Times has covered Dolan several times in the last several months since he was named to as archbishop of New York in April (he gets his own topic page).
Dolan doesn’t appear to be critical of all media, however. Just last week, Dolan told the National Catholic Register that the media in New York have been “exceptionally attentive” since his installation. “They have been interested in what I have to say, they have joined in the chorus of welcome, and I can’t keep up with the requests for interviews and articles and appearances,” the archbishop told the reporter. So far, Dolan’s critiques appear to be focused mostly on the Times.
The story began on Dolan’s new blog, so I find it fairly ironic that on the same day he posted his critique, the Times offered a pretty positive piece about the blog titled “Archbishop Dolan Is Blogging. Keep the Comments Clean.” (Is it really still a big deal that people start blogs? the Times seems to think so — if it’s the Archbishop of New York.)
Newspapers shouldn’t try to fill a positive story quota, but surely there are more compelling stories of the Catholic Church doing good (and interesting) deeds than the archbishop’s new blog.
First photo courtesy of University of Notre Dame Press. Second photo courtesy of Annie Mole.
 | Posted at 7:00 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (20) |
November 3, 2009, at 9:28 am
It is NOT “a tiny minority of priests”…simply go to: bishopsaccountability.org for the astounding TRUTH.
November 3, 2009, at 9:33 am
and it’s less about the predatory priests than the complicit bishops.
David Clohessy, national director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (314 566 9790), SNAPnetwork.org, SNAPclohessy@aol.com
November 3, 2009, at 10:11 am
The Archbishop’s point about the double standard is undeniable. For example, there has never been a similar level of outrage expressed by the press about the level of sexual abuse in public schools (new reports every single week) as was directed against the Catholic Church.
And the “astounding TRUTH” about the incidence of sexual abuse by clergy is actually contained in the John Jay College study, which collected data from virtually every diocese and religious community, and found that “approximately 4% of Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been accused of the sexual abuse of a youth under the age of 18.” (http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/).
4% over a 50+ year period is a “tiny minority”.
November 3, 2009, at 11:21 am
It seems that Dolan feels the need to defend his church. In the Bible, when the early Christians were being persecuted, one of the persecutors remarked that if it was of God it would survive, and if it wasn’t it would die out. Maybe Dolan needs to let God take care of the Catholic church, and he needs to spend more time running his archdiocese!
November 3, 2009, at 12:11 pm
I’m glad Archbishop Dolan wrote his piece, but find it odd that spulliam thought the Times piece on his blog was “pretty positive.” I found it to be full of snide comments like he “needs help with certain functions, like turning it on.” Kind of reinforces the Archbishop’s main point, in my opinion.
November 3, 2009, at 12:40 pm
Mr Mechmann, if you believe ANYTHING coming out of the US Bish Club, you are in serious denial. In addition to the onoing, neverending intimidation, obfuscation and lying, how many thousands of boxes of personnel (and other) files have been sent by miters and red hats to the Papal Nuncio for “safekeeping,” and how many thousands of boxes of files have taken a trip through their shredders.
Those “facts” in the John Jay study were supplied by the Bish Club. ‘Nuff said.
A miniscule percentage of victims of sex-driven crimes actually report them. So, what you are seeing is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. When you read that some predator priest is accused of raping/sodomizing/molesting, say, eight children, just multiply that by 10 to 20 and you’ll have a truer number.
Owlafaye has it exactly right. If you dare, go to Bishop Accoutability and read the obscene truth. Also, daily updating at http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker. (Have barf bag at ready.)
November 3, 2009, at 12:56 pm
I thought that blogs and other non-news media statements were not the main fodder of GetReligion unless there was something that really stood out. I did not find the Dolan piece met that test especially the part about the blog post that commented on an opinion piece.
November 3, 2009, at 1:39 pm
Jerry:
Since when is a letter to the Times about its coverage, a letter addressing many issues common to GR, a letter then picked up by another outlet, not something that people who care about religion news would want to know about?
When people comment about issues OF RELIGION COVERAGE then we consider it fair game.
November 3, 2009, at 1:40 pm
Lots of very nasty comments coming in.
Please stay on the subject — which is the content of the Times coverage and the archbishop’s criticism of it. Take your arguments about the ISSUES themselves elsewhere.
Spiking away.
November 3, 2009, at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the feedback, Christopher. I didn’t find the piece on Dolan’s blog to contain snide remarks. I think it showed that while Dolan might not be a computer whiz, he’s trying to communicate through a blog. That said, I also wondered whether that was newsworthy.
Other commenters, please keep the discussion on Dolan’s critique or The New York Times coverage, not whether the Catholic Church did or didn’t do something.
November 3, 2009, at 2:01 pm
… The issues Dolan raises are entirely legitimate, and The Times should be ashamed of itself — though humility doesn’t seem to be in its vocabulary.
November 3, 2009, at 3:30 pm
Hmmm, on the first bullet point, the good Archbishop is producing nothing but baked wind. He’s comparing one story about one year of one community of a city with the press-treatment of the proven behavior of the majority of American bishops for the last 60 years, and he doesn’t even get that right.
Spulliam, did you get it wrong as well, or am I missing something? It seems pretty bloody obvious to me: The article clearly states that there were 26 arrests this year, not the “forty cases of such abuse” that Dolan claims. According to the story, there are 40 people willing to testify, which means the orthodox community is obviously not using the same legal teams as our sweet mother, The Church.
Additionally, he implies the Times was behaving in a persecutory manner toward the church regarding a “tiny minority of priests.” This demonstrates that, Once Again, we have a Bishop willing to only tell a tiny, and conveniently self-serving fraction of the truth about the scandal by claiming it was about child-molesting priests and not the majority of Bishops who were willing to sacrifice an indefinite number of other people’s children as long as they didn’t have to do their d——— jobs. Golly. I hope I have that kind of integrity someday. The Catholic Press (genuflect people!) has been more than willing to continue disseminating this rank, stinking propaganda rather than doing their homework.
Now, to his credit, Dolan doesn’t accuse the orthodox community of conducting an ongoing campaign of lies, willful obstruction of justice, or legally attacking victims to intimidate them, or using spiritual authority to silence them…but that would raise such uncomfortable questions about the Bishops long-standing behavior of giving only lip-service to justice while behaving like overzealous mafiosi, now wouldn’t it? Quelle Horror! We want to distance ourselves from those kinds of things as quickly as possible.
The second bullet is iffy, and 3 and 4 are pretty much on his side. Why would Dolan choose to lead with the deception?
I suppose he can claim he’s concerned more with being “truthy” rather than something so mundane as “accurate” or “correct” or “honest” or “virtuous.” Then you read the disclaimer, in image form, on the right: “…The Archdiocese of New York is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied in the blog.” If questioned about anything he’s said or done, it sounds like Dolan’s going to be just like most other Bishops: he won’t be able to recall.
Sorry if you think this isn’t on topic, but I thought that in reviewing the column, attention to whether or not Dolan is actually distorting the truth should count.
November 3, 2009, at 3:50 pm
Also, please be informed that Mr. Mechmann is somewhat connected to the Archdiocese of New York in that he is an attorney who works with the Family Life/Respect Life Office and the Safe Environment Program of the Archdiocese.
This of course does not mean that his statements cannot be trusted. It simply means that he may be subject to other motives for putting the Archbishop’s attempt to delicately pirouette the truth in as kind a light as possible.
November 3, 2009, at 4:55 pm
Over all Archbishop Dolan has had a consistant message but does this piece strike anyone else as whiny? (Eveybody is
doing it. Why are you not as mean to them?)
November 3, 2009, at 5:19 pm
Doug, If I’m reading the story right, there were 40 children willing to speak out. That would mean there were 40 cases, right? (26 were arrested)
Please keep the comments clean and focused on the critique. Thanks.
November 3, 2009, at 6:27 pm
Spulliam - One of the points of the Goodstein piece on the
“quarter cemtury old story of a sin by a priest” lies in the
fact that yhe hypocrit was still pastoring a parish AND
various hierarchs in the RC church knew it. …
November 4, 2009, at 4:48 am
Spulliam, I don’t think so. The pertinent quotes from the article:
“Some years, there were one or two arrests, or none. But in the past year, there have been 26.”
and:
“Prosecutors say that since last year 40 minors have agreed to testify about abuse in court,..”
and finally, Dolan’s:
“According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone.”
There were 26 arrests last year. Were they current cases, or simply arrests made regarding cases still within the statue of limitations? Presumably we’re discussing criminal cases because prosecutors are quoted; they said that since last year 40 minors have agreed to testify about abuse. The unasked/unanswered question there is WHAT are they going to testify? That they were abused? That they witnessed someone being abused? That Rabbi so-and-so was always funny about sex?
Beyond the number of arrests, the article never gives any indication of just how many cases came to light in the past year. This is sloppy writing on the part of the journalist. But there is no indication of the number of cases of abuse the past year.
November 4, 2009, at 10:44 am
If you have miscreant parties each molesting more than one child, this could lead to 40 complaining witnesses and 26 arrests.
November 4, 2009, at 3:59 pm
This letter was sent to Archbishop Dolan yesterday.
Dear Archbishop Dolan,
I was very disturbed to read your blog post about The New York Times, and about my work and that of my colleagues as “anti-Catholic.”
You write as though the Catholic Church is some sort of special target, when in fact any institution that is accused of wrongdoing receives critical coverage and commentary. As you know, the Catholic Church is the largest religious institution in the world, and a quarter of Americans are adherents. The Catholic Church is a hierarchical church with a clear chain of accountability. It is only natural that it receives such scrutiny.
As you acknowledged in your blog, there are recent developments in the Church that are “well-worth discussing and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning.” So when a newspaper undertakes this kind of coverage, it should not be seen as anti-Catholic. If so, we could equally be accused of being anti-Every religious group that we have called to task, and there are many.
You cite Paul Vitello’s front page story about sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community as evidence that the Times is anti-Catholic. Paul and I find it a hard argument to understand. The Times has written about the sexual abuse of minors by clergy of many faiths: Jews, Southern Baptists, mainline Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals. But the abuse story has been bigger for the Catholic Church simply because of the quantitative facts: there are more priests accused, more alleged victims, more countries involved, more settlements, more years since the problem first became public, more legal and financial consequences and simply more people affected.
In mentioning my piece about a priest who had an affair with an adult woman, you imply that there was no reason to run a story now that is 20 years old. You neglected to acknowledge that this piece was written now because the priest’s son is dying of brain cancer, he believes the church and the priest have failed him, and because the priest was still serving in a parish where neither his parishioners nor his bishop had knowledge of his philandering until I began reporting. One of the women he was involved with was allegedly a minor, and at one point the priest suggested that a pregnancy he was responsible for be terminated by an abortion.
I wrote the story because church officials have said privately to me over the years that priests who violate their vows with adult women are far more common than priests who sexually abuse minors. Also, I have also been contacted over the years by adult women in similar situations. I wrote about this woman because she was willing to go public with her experience and had the legal documentation and photographs to prove that this was more than a case of he said/she said.
You claim that the Times ran this story instead of covering Afghanistan, health care and the Sudan, but as you know the Times is regularly full of stories about all these issues.
And finally, you cite as “anti-Catholic” the coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s new structure for welcoming traditionalist Anglicans into the Catholic Church. The Times’ story did state clearly, as you pointed out, that the arrangement was a response to requests from some Anglicans. Certainly, the Vatican is “welcoming” these Anglicans, but many other Anglicans feel as if the church were making a bid for their allegiances. Our story used language reflecting these various points of view. Our coverage did not differ much from most of the media coverage, except that we were far more tempered than some.
Archbishop Dolan, you and I have known one another since we first met in Rome in 1998 when you were rector at the North American College. We met again years later when I was doing a story about you and several others whom I dubbed “Healer Bishops” who were trying to help the church recover from the scandal over sexual abuse by priests.
I am pained that your blog selectively overlooked all the articles in the Times that you and other bishops in the church have praised over the years because you found them fair, and there are many (including some about your appointment to the Archdiocese of New York). This is why I cannot accept your characterization of the Times as “anti-Catholic.”
This weekend, I am going to the conference of the American Academy of Religion, the largest society of religion scholars, to receive their top journalism award for a three-part series I did last year on the Catholic Church. The subject was international priests serving in the church, and the series included stories about a Kenyan priest beloved by his Kentucky parishioners, an American vicar who selects foreign priests to serve in his diocese, and why so many young Indians choose vocations in the Catholic Church. To do these pieces, I spent many weeks in American parishes and a week living in a seminary in India. If the Times were “anti-Catholic,” why would it devote the reporting time and three consecutive front page stories to a fair and affectionate look at the contemporary Catholic Church?
Sincerely,
Laurie Goodstein
National Religion Correspondent
The New York Times
November 6, 2009, at 1:13 am
Ms. Goldstein, I really admire your evenhanded response to an undeserved criticism. Just once, it would show remorse on the part of the Catholic Church if they would stop the finger-pointing and say something like, “Yes, we deserve the criticism about the child sexual abuse, and we can help other organizations learn from our mistakes and our own crimes.” Every time victims and their families have to read this tripe, it hurts them all over again. Just keep saying you’re sorry. Say you’re sorry until it hurts. Then say it again. Catholics are now completely mainstreamed into the culture. Critique of the Church is not always anti-Catholic, and I think that the Archbishop probably agrees. But if the best defense is a good offense, then he’ll continue to repeat the talking points as the Church also fights against the Markey bill [for a longer SOL and a one-year window] and any legislation it doesn’t like in New York State.